Leaving aside the rather childish retort at the end, there are some flaws in this common line of thinking that I’d like to address.
Thread
+
Thread
+
https://twitter.com/khamaniyo/status/1343488981741293568
It basically starts from the belief that an electoral mandate legitimises all legislative actions by the government.
It doesn’t. First, we have anti- defection laws and limited scope for MPs to vote against the party position on anything.
+
It doesn’t. First, we have anti- defection laws and limited scope for MPs to vote against the party position on anything.
+
Second, consultation and convincing stakeholders (ideally prior to enacting the laws) is an important part of the any legislative process which should never be skipped or bulldozed, no matter what the majority is.
+
+
Third, there is a reason for centre/state divisions of legislative power. Farm laws fall in the state list and not the union list- state govts are in a better place to engage with and understand the concern of a wider range of the farming community.
+
+
Fourth, needless to say, bills like this should never have been passed by a voice vote in the RS.
+
+
The belief that the only recourse in a democracy is the ballot isn’t correct. Registering protest is one very legitimate way of letting the government know of your concerns. And when a law has been bulldozed through as this one has, it’s the only one left.
Perhaps before sitting in judgment on the legitimacy of any protests, it’s useful to ask the questions, why are they on the street? were the stakeholders heard before these laws were enacted? Were their concerns discussed?
+
+
In a well functioning democracy people (even an electoral minority) doesn’t have to take to the streets to be heard. If they’re on the streets, try asking why our democracy isn’t functioning as it should.
End.
End.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
